(Image: The uprising begins: Ex-cop testifies before Congress, says “will not comply” with gun confiscation laws)
The uprising begins: Ex-cop testifies before Congress, says “will not comply” with gun confiscation laws
Sunday, October 06, 2019 by: Isabelle Z.
(Natural News) A former police officer expressed the sentiment of many Americans when she testified before Congress recently that she won’t comply with gun confiscation laws.
Dianna Muller, who won the ladies title in the 2015 NRA World Shooting Championship, is a 22-year veteran of the Tulsa Police Department. Speaking before the House Judiciary Committee recently, she stated that she would not be participating in an assault weapons ban should one be put in place.
She told the committee: “Please don’t legislate the 150 million people just like me into being criminals.”
She also spoke out on the ban on the bump stocks that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like automatic ones, saying she was forced to decide between complying with the ban or becoming a felon. Should she face a similar question about assault weapons, she said in no uncertain terms that she would not comply.
As a law enforcement officer during the previous assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004, she said she did not see any impact on safety from the measure, adding that it wouldn’t have been allowed to sunset if it had been effective.
Muller is also the founder of the gun advocacy group The DC Project. Appearing on Fox & Friends shortly after her testimony, she warned that the Second Amendment is at stake and said that gun owners should “get involved and engaged.”
She said that many people in law enforcement agree with her stance and that those in favor of such a ban are throwing around terms such as “weapons of war” simply to stir up emotions.
Muller and other people at the hearing also raised questions about the practicality of such a ban. They said that the differences between the AR-15 and weapons like it, and a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle are merely cosmetic.
Another witness, Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Policy Analyst Amy Swearer, disputed the notion that law-abiding citizens don’t need weapons like AR-15s. She pointed out that her mother, who is a gun novice, struggled to fire a handgun at the range but was far more accurate when she tried an AR-15. Its greater stability makes it easy to handle and fire accurately in tense situations, but it can also be argued that simply brandishing one is often enough to deter would-be criminals from doing harm.
A question of self-defense
Many people who have obtained these weapons legally have done so for self-defense purposes, and several recent cases illustrate how valuable they can be in a life-or-death situation.
For example, a college student was able to scare off two armed burglars simply by holding up an unloaded AR-15 in 2013. That same year, a 15-year-old boy saved his own life and that of his 12-year-old sister when he fended off a pair of home invaders using his father’s AR-15.
When an Illinois man with an AR-15 intervened as a neighbor was attacking a pregnant woman with a knife in Oswego, Illinois, last year, the “intimidation factor” of the rifle was cited as the reason the attacker ultimately dropped his knife.
Muller likely spoke for a lot of gun owners when she said she didn’t plan to comply with laws that amount to gun confiscation, and such a move could well spark an uprising. Most owners of AR-15s and similar weapons hope they never have to use them on another person, but the peace of mind of knowing they can defend themselves and their families from those who want to harm them is something many people are willing to protect at all costs.
Sources for this article include: